Constituting Identities That Challenge the Contemporary Discourse: Power, Discourse, Experience, and Emotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this article, we use a narrative methodology to understand the work of three teachers who have constituted identities that have allowed them to challenge the contemporary discourse of science education. We describe how teachers’ evolving identities have been constituted through their responses to the discourses and situations of their work and their emotional response to these experiences. A Foucauldian analysis of the data indicates three important conclusions. The first is the need for, or development of, an environment that immerses teachers in discourse that allows, and actively supports, classroom practices that challenge the contemporary discourse. A key component of such discourse is an awareness of the emotional aspects of teaching. The second conclusion is the potential power of the mandated curriculum to legitimize, for teachers, discourses that challenge the contemporary discourse. Third, individual teachers may lack the power necessary to establish discourse environments that fully capitalize on their potential influence within the infrastructure of pedagogical science. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 97:171–190, 2013
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".